Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Category:Men and Category:Women[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The parent category for all masculine things is "Category:Men". "men" are "males", but the subtle difference is men (plural) or a "man" means an adult human-male. Similarly, women (plural) or a "woman" means an adult human-female. There should be a way to sort female things and male things on Wikipedia. For example a "mare" would be a "female" category, while a "bull" would be in the "male" category. CaribDigita (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - These categories are for people. I followed the category path from Category:Men to Category:Animals. I don't see anywhere that animals are split by gender. I see the nom has created Category:Male animals to hold Category:Men. Incidentally, List of animal names lists (among other things) animal names by gender. No opinion (yet) on whether a gender specific category tree for animals should be created. But this is not the way to do it. - jc37 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Male = Rooster, Bull, Ram, Bucks. Female = Hens, elk, sheep etc. CaribDigita (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- These are abou human beings. The targets would include animals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The point of these categies is to be about humans. That means we use man and woman. These terms are not limited to adults. In fact until sometime in the 1980s one could say "man" and mean any human of any age. That began to change then, but men and women can still be used as universal designations in some topics. If we are going to change them they have to at least go to "human males" and "human females" because that is what we want. I would actually advocate changing them to Category:Man and Category:Woman to emphasize their purpose of containing articles that have this as their topic, as opposed to articles where the thing the article is on can be so described. I am assuming that my proposal would make it less likely that someone would put an article on Michelle Obama (just to pick the name that came to my head quickest that I was sure I could spell) in the category. I am not sure how much the change from Category:Women to Category:Woman would mean, and since the articles we want so categorized would have names like Women's health or Women's rights in Ethiopia, maybe my change is not a good idea. Maybe we should change it to Category:Men related topics or Category:Men related issues and the effected women's issues. Just to point out that the basic claim that these categories are limited to adults is odd, does anyone claim that a specialist in women's health or women's health issues relate only to adults? If they did there would not be complaints against PPFA for how it treats cases involving pregnant minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing preventing someone from creating a higher level category of male and female to contain these categories and articles and or categories about the specific male and female designations of other animals. That can be done while leaving these categories with their current names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose human (fe)male =/= (fe)male  ; that's just systematic bias and introduces ambiguity. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1971 Juno Award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:1971 Juno Award winners to Category:Juno Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems like a non-defining characteristic by adding the year. If category for winners for each year of the Juno Awards is created, this could result in overcategorizatoin for many artists and record companies. Bryan Adams, for example, will be categorized into 11 categories of Juno Award winners by year instead of simply Category:Juno Award winners, where it now resides. Individual year winners are better listed in the award year page, in this case, Juno Awards of 1971. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Guessing that Category:Music award winners and subcats (like the nom) are exceptions to WP:OC#AWARD? - jc37 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not inventing anything new. There is a Music awards by year within Category:Music awards. The OC claim for the Bryan Adams articles and the like can be rectified by another category multiple winners. If a multi award winners category is created, it certainly won't be all that large. The Category:Juno Award winners is large containing 361 articles and doesn't do much other than they recieved a Juno Award sometime for something. The vast majority of articles will benefit from category yyyy Juno Award winners. Here is one. Argolin (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. The fact that people do win this award in multiple years shows that splitting it out by year in a category is just unreasonable. It is alomost as bad as creating the category Category:Religious leaders in 1971.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by unreasonable. Your example is different from this. These year categories have a definite number of member articles. There were 16 Juno Awards handed out in 1971. Currently, Category:1971 Juno Award winners has 15 articles. Why? Wikipedia is missing an article on the 16th. With all "winners" lumped into the main category, you have no idea if you truely have all winners in the category. Further, you don't know if you have too many in the category due to improper categorisation. Argolin (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Macau fooers categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Close without precedent or prejudice for a future discussion. With various blocked IPs, newly arrived IPs and general confusion I don't think we can get a clear decision either way. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The English term "Macanese" refers specifically to an ethnic group with partial Portuguese descent. There are a handful of Fooian categories that are already using the word "Macau" as the genitive case (e.g. politicians, businesspeople, diaspora, expatriates, women in politics, footballers), in the same manner as "United States fooers" or "New Zealand fooers". The Macau government is also using "Macau pataca" or "Macao pataca" to refer to its currency.[1] This request is to bring all Macau fooers categories consistent. An alternative would be the fooers from Northern Ireland format, but this will affect more existing categories. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
  • Oppose Banned socks can't nominate. The claim that "Macanese" only refers to a specific ethnic group isn't the case as used in reliable sources. In sources, Macanese refers to things "of Macau". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Please submit your sock claim with evidence. In most English sources the word "Macanese" refers to the ethnic group. There are indeed some sources that use the word to refer to things of Macau, but that's a minority, and, more importantly, not unambiguous. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
Oxford is a definitive source, [2] and disagrees with you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As said, #1 in Oxford's definition is the predominant usage and #2 is not unambiguous. Further, Oxford gives the only spelling of the name of the territory as "Macao". In real-life usage, however, "Macau" is more common, perhaps at the ratio of 2:1. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
  • Oppose If a change like this is wanted, it's going to need a larger consensus that is likely to be achieved here. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But ambiguity is also a big problem to be addressed. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
  • Rename the very fact that we have both the Macau and Macanese categories for people by occupation shows we should do something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Agree. This isn't a case of variant spelling or usage. It involves a term that is ambiguous and therefore undesirable for naming a category. It creates confusions. The unambiguous term should be preferred. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
    • Rename per nom and Lambert's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all according to nomination. 59.188.42.101 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
  • Note. I have just notified WikiProject Macau. This should have done at the start of this discussion, so may I suggest that the discussion be left open to allow project members a chance to contribute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought it would appear under the Article alert section of the WikiProject. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
Most of the categories weren't tagged until now and the WikiProject doesn't seem to use Article Alerts. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged all categories that I nominated with the CfR tag, but another user keeps following my edits and removed the tags. Thanks again for notifying the WikiProject. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
  • Comment What do you call people from Macao? Macanese. What do you call patua speakers? Macanese. Same word with different meansings but Macao Occupationer isn't correct english. If word Macanese is reserved for ethnic group then something must be found to identify those from Macao who aren't. 203.184.138.132 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all per nominator. The standard for people by occupation and sub-national political division is either (a) to use the placename noun as an attributive ("Foostate fooers"), or (b) to put the name of the political division after the occupation ("Fooers from Foostate"). Very few of these categories choose option (c) to form an adjective from the name of a sub-national political divisions ("Foostatian fooers"). See for example the Category:American people by occupation by state category tree, which uses a mix of (a) and (b), or Category:People by Canadian province or territory and occupation, which uses exclusively (b). I see very few examples of (c): e.g. Category:Bavarian politicians. 61.18.170.226 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)— 1.18.170.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Question to both IPs above (or anyone else): if "Macanese" requires context to distinguish the ethnic group from the general usage (which categories don't do), and if "Foostate fooers" is an irregular usage, is it overcategorization to use the sub-grouping of the ethnic group at all? And, should all categories nominated become "Foo of Macau"? Thus avoiding the issue entirely? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Move all per nomination. They are probably some other categories not nominated. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and likely a sock(blocked for block evasion)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Hollywood[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Hollywood to Category:People from Hollywood, Los Angeles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) For consistency - all other categories of people by district or neighborhood within Los Angeles are named "People from Fooian, Los Angeles" (see Category:People by Los Angeles, California district or neighborhood) 2) To disambiguate from Hollywood, Florida, a city with a population of 140,000 plus. Mayumashu (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- There is a good deal of precedent for this. Hollywood, LA is clearly primary as is Birmingham, England, but its categories are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, to prevent it accidently picking up articles, which should be in Category:Birmingham, Alabama. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above and also to encourage editors to think in geographic terms rather than metaphoric or industry terms when adding items to this category. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When I say "he is from Hollywood" people assume I am talking about the industry, not the specific place. We need to make it clear this is for people who lived in Hollywood, California, not for people who appeared in blockbuster films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • stronger than usual oppose, since the article is at Hollywood and the parent category is Category:Hollywood. It's the same reason we don't have Category:People from Paris, France. The proposed change will make it more difficult to figure out what the appropriate category is named if the starting point is looking at the article Hollywood. Categories for people from a place should always be "People from PLACE", where PLACE = the name of the Wikipedia article about that place. But above all, why would we change the "people from" category without doing anything to Category:Hollywood? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the opening paragraph in the article on Hollywood it says "the word Hollywood is often used as a metonym of American cinema", this indicates that "People from Hollywood" would not be understood to mean people from the specific place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I buy that. Someone might be referred to as a "Holywood mogul", but not as a "person from Hollywood" unless they indeed were "from" there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and per Johnpacklambert to distinguish between the geographical place in LA and the jargon term for those in the film industry and also Hollywood, Florida, and per the many precedents for using disambiguation in category names even when there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In this case, the potential for confusion is high, because the two radically difft usages both refer to the same place. As the nominator points out, the convention of Category:People by Los Angeles, California district or neighborhood is to use "Ppl from Foo, LA".--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stone churches in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Stone churches in the United States to Category:Stone church buildings in the United States
Nominator's rationale The current name is ambiguous. With there being so many denominations of churches, someone might think this is a delineation of a denomination. It is also unclear at present what needs to be of stone, the new name emphasizes it is the building structure, as opposed to possibly some of the internal components of the church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have consistently resisted attempts to differentiate church buildings from churches in categories. A hatnote of explanation is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this one. The "stone" adjective makes it very clear that this cat is for buildings. - jc37 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For me, a church can refer to the organization, so 'church building' makes the intended meaning perfectly clear, as it should be Mayumashu (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old West Downs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Old West Downs to Category:People educated at West Downs School
Nominators rationale This would move the category from jargon to regular and clear English usage. This is especially useful here because based on the name, one would suppose it would be West Down School, and that is not the name. There is no clear link from the category name to the school name at present, but a rename would establish this link.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year. The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but as the nominator correctly notes a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated.
    The existing consensus on the obscurity of this term is demonstrated by the zero hits for "Old West Down" in a search of wikipedia; editors have rightly preferred the plain English usage in biographies, such as "educated at West Downs School, which as 24 hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per BHG's well-honed rationale (after many similar cfds). Oculi (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this is not about the old parts of West Downs. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. No way to know what this category contains without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hat notes do not appear with the use of the category on an article page. That is not the answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have heard the word "jargon" so many times before, but somehow it seems that specifically American terminology (such as "alumni") is almost never considered "jargon", whereas British usage is. The correct name is perfectly "clear English usage", and as it happens this one clearly is "based on the name" of the school, for what that's worth. This category was no doubt included in last year's general onslaught on all "Old Fooians", which found no consensus for change. Moonraker (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My 1980s Shorter Oxford Dictionary has an entry for Alumnus/i "the nursling or pupil of any school, university, etc", and records the first usage in 1645. It has no entry for "Old West Downs".
    Do you think that the Oxford Dictionary is an American publication? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise to implement because it is clear in meaning and it is unambiguous and it avoids jargon and it promotes some consistency. A redirect could be kept on the Old Fooian category name if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Stoics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. The suggestion of hatnoting does not work for categories, as hatnotes appear on the category page - not on the article page where the category appears and would cause confusion. The Bushranger One ping only 06:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Old Stoics to Category:People educated at Stowe School
Nominators rationale The current name is essentially a joke, and is hard to accept as a serious category name in an encyclopedia. Beyond this it is obscure and unclear. Stoics are followers of a specific philosphy, so capitalization would not clearly rule out that use of the term. An Old Soic could easily be a person who rejected the ideas of Stoicism at some point, at least if "old" is the common English term for someone who was formerly connected with or associated with a particulr place or thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year. The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but as the nominator correctly notes a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated.
    In this case the term "Old Stoic" clearly has a primary meaning completely unrelated to the school, so it is not just obscure jargon for the reader; it is highly misleading. Categories exist for the sole purpose of assisting navigation, and "Old Stoics" places an unnecessary hurdle in the path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: We have seen before the notion that "The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians..." I recall that BrownHairedGirl used to say that the "Old Fooian" format should be kept for such "high-profile" schools, but the judgement of what is a high-profile school strikes me as subjective, and elsewhere she is supporting the renaming of "Old Wykehamists". If Winchester is not "high profile" then is Eton the only British school which is? Moonraker (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICS, there is no current discussion of Category:Old Wykehamists, but if there was I would apply the same test: whether the "old Fooian" term is a) ambiguous b) obscure c) widely used outside of the school.
    In this, we are discussing Stowe rather than Eton or Winchester, so it would be interesting to see any evidence you may have of common usage of the term "Old Stoics" to refer to those who attended Stowe School. Is it well enough known, for example, to be used without explanation in newspapers? Or in books aimed at a general circulation? And how does that compare with the prevalence of the term "Old Etonian"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, here are a few, no more than scratching the surface. Moonraker (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Windsor Magazine, vol. 76 (1932), p. 770: "Aylmer was the first Old Stoic to hold a commission in the Regular Army..."
The Illustrated London News, vol. 228 (1956), p. 320: "Now the only two old Stoic Presidents of the Union in Mr. Ward's time were..."
The Listener, vol. 74 (1965): "Old Stoic though he is, he seemed a long way then from his gracious Alma Mater."
Time, vol. 99 (1972): "Even at stately Stowe, a school he really liked, Old Stoic Niven couldn't resist cheating in an exam."
Studio International, vol. 185 (1973): "Poldo Novoa, an Exhibition of the Work of Old Stoic Artists to commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary of Stowe School"
David Shepherd, The man who loves giants: an artist among elephants and engines (1975): "No wonder the Old Stoic walking through the exhibition in his lunch-hour from his City office..."
'J. F. Roxburgh' in Obituaries from the Times, 1951-1960 (1979): "...every Old Stoic casualty was for him a bitter personal loss."
Punch, vol. 284 (1983) p. 24: "featuring Old Stoic George Melly"
Country Life vol. 182, (1988), p. 71: "an old Stoic and recently retired cavalry officer, Col. Edward Walsh..."
Michael Crick, Michael Heseltine: a biography (1997), p. 100: "She wasn't very sociable, says one old Stoic..."
Jonah Jones, Clough Williams-Ellis: the architect of Portmeirion : a memoir (1996), p. 73: "The architect John Taylor of Taylor Chapman, an old Stoic, declared..."
Richard Carr-Gomm, All Things Considered (2005), p. 20: "Anthony Quinton – himself an old Stoic..."
Karan Thapar, Sunday Sentiments (2006), : "Peregrine Worsthorne, later editor of The Sunday Telegraph and an Old Stoic..."
Country Life, vol. 203 (2009), p. 101: "He found time to write to my Old Stoic father on his return from the war..."
  • Rename per nom and per BHG's well-honed rationale (after many similar cfds). Oculi (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename this is not about old Greek philosophers of the stoic school of thought. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Stowe is a major public school. Like BHG's example of Old Etonians for Eton College, this case is one where the form "old fooians" should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment neither Stoic nor Stoics have anything to do with that school. Therefore this is a highly ambiguous name, if it were widely known, and it is not widely known worldwide, so it becomes a local usage that is not a worldwide usage. You'd at least need a disambiguatory term. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Old Stoic" has only one meaning and is specific to the school. See my comparison below with "chestnut horse". Moonraker (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "'Old Stoic' has only one meaning...". A plain reading of it means "Stoics" who are "old". No? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. This one is especially confusing because the term doesn't directly relate to the name and Stoics are more commonly related with something else. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. No way to know what this category contains without context. I would have thought this one was about classical philosophers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment Even if you know Stowe why would you expect its old fooian to be this. If it was like "Old Etonian" (which is not nearly as well known as some people claim, I never heard nor saw the "old fooians" term until i was about 27 and editing wikipedia, and I might be underestimating what my age was then, and I had both watched and read "Goodbye Mr. Chipps" before that) then it would be "Old Stoweians" or maybe "old Stowians". The name is severly altered in this transformation, and then turned into a term that has very widely used and unrelated meanings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The name no doubt began whimsically, but it cannot be called "a joke". Many others have shared my view that the correct name, as used by an educational institution, is a "serious category name". This one is neither obscure nor unclear, as the word "Stoics" is plainly not "Old Stoics". To say that "Old Stoics" suggests elderly followers of Stoicism is plainly no more serious than to say that a "chestnut horse" sounds like a nut. Finally, this category was included in last year's general onslaught on all "Old Fooians", which found no consensus for change. Moonraker (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise to implement because it is clear in meaning and it is unambiguous and it avoids jargon and it promotes some consistency. A redirect could be kept on the Old Fooian category name if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Old Stoics might also be the used term to distinguish them from neo-Stoicism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many references to Londoners could I find. I am sure 100 times as many as to Old Stoics, and yet we do not use the term for the category name, it is Category:People from London. I am not convinced all the references to Old Stoics are speaking of people who were educated at Stowe School. The last "my old stoic father", in my reading means the father who is a Stoic and old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States and place names of Yorkshire origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Place names of Yorkshire origin in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are built around shared characteristics of the name of a place, not about anything about the place itself.I could nominate all 34 sub-cats of the English origin case, but I really do not feel like doing that at the moment. It takes a long time, and I did that in the past only to have it voted down by people who really only focused on one very differently built category which has since been listified anyway, so I will start small instead of expending large amounts of energy in what might prove a futile effort to improve wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammy Award-winning albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus --Salix (talk): 07:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album to Category:Grammy Award winners for Best Alternative Music Album
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following a outcome at CFD to rename Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to Category:Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year in December (see WP:CFD/2011 Dec 6), I think all the other similarly named categories should follow suit. The Grammy category for each is "Best Album" and its those winning albums that are being populated in these Wiki categories. The inclusion of "winners" specifies what goes into these categories vs. the generic Award name alone. The artists, producers, etc. that actually receive the award would still go in Category:Grammy Award winners as has been standard practice to avoid overcategorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All nominated categories
That's a bit awkward isn't it. The award is the Grammy Award, and they are awarded in a number of different categories. Another option could be to follow the precendent of Academy Award categories: there's the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and the corresponding category, Category:Best Animated Feature Academy Award winners. These would then be, using the same example Mike used, Category:Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album Grammy Award winners. I'd avoid the redundancy of using "album/albums" twice because it is the album that is named the best and, to me, it makes sense to put articles on albums, not the individuals or groups involved in making them, into categories called "Best album winners". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Winners" is ambiguous. We just had a big discussion about this in a book category discussion. "Winning works" is also an option.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer something less awkward like Category:Grammy Award-winning albums for Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album. It's not splitting up anything because there's the award (the Grammy) and the category (in this case, Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album), and they'd fit nicely as child cats to Category:Grammy Award-winning albums.
On a side note, regarding the ambiguity of the word "winners" maybe Category:Grammy Award winners should be renamed to Category:Grammy Award-winning artists (upmerging Category:Grammy Award-winning albums to Category:Grammy Awards). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Using "...artists" to be reciprocal of "...albums" sounds a like a decent idea. Please nominate that : ) - jc37 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with MS. The category names should determine the name of the award, then add who/what the target of the award was/is. - jc37 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This just looks like "no consensus" then with little input and no agreement on any particular name. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_9

Leave a Reply